Is it time to educate creationists on "transitional fossils" again..?

Question

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

So, no more "there are no transitional fossils" comments please..?

Answer 1

Fundamentalists think God was too stupid and inept to use evolution as his tool. They stick to the letter of the bible and become ideologues which is actually an unchristian thing!

These people say the bible is absolutely right and science is wrong. But then it does not explain where the great variety of animals come from or the millions of different insects.

It also does not explain why humans have fish oil glands in the creases at the side of their noses. Evolution would explain it but creation would suggest a slight mistake was made!

Last month the Pope - arguably the most senior Christian - said that science had shown evolution but as it took millions of years the final proof would probably never be found!

But whilst laughing at creationists and being horrified by their tyrannical demands to teach it in schools please remember there are millions of more enlightened good Christians out there who believe in a loving, inclusive and forgiving God!

Answer 2

You are correct. The Creationoids don't really have a sense of history, demanding a transitional form and then, when one is discovered, demanding forms between that and the previous species end-points they were discussing, casting doubt every step of the way. Nothing but a complete pedigree of an animal going back to the Devonian will satisfy them:

X ---------- ? ---------- Y
X --- ? ---- Z --- ? --- Y
X ? W ? Z ? V ? Y

But turn the question around. Creationism is not proven by carping at the third- or fourth-order aspects of Evolution, it is proven by presenting some evidence of the basics of Creationism AS A WHOLE. That's hard to do, since if you admit that our lousy retinas with the nerves above the sensing-cells are a flaw, as a Creationist you must admit they are a DESIGN flaw and God's an idiot.

Answer 3

time educate creationists transitional fossils

Answer 4

what is your point with all of your questions exactly? you are not proving anything except that you believe in evolution and not in a god. have you ever thought that maybe both are possible as well as neither. From a scientific standpoint, you are retarded for blindly accepting a "theory". you even explained in a previous "question" that a theory is not fact but rather generally excepted that it is true based on the evidence. that doesn't mean that it is infact true.

Answer 5

I can't believe you're dragging Archaeopteryx off the shelf and dusting it off. You need a newer biology book.

BTW your sermons are against the rules.

Answer 6

Your endless, enormous copypasta's are truly uninspiring. Have you got another angle?

Answer 7

You're really determined aren't you?
But you see, teaching Christians a scientific theory that opposes their strange religion is pretty much useless, so you might as well stop.

Answer 8

=)
Well, I'm here for moral support I guess. Yea science!

Answer 9

These are my thoughts.

Everybody on this planet has a sense of humour, and the more passionate people are in public, the more they're chuckling in some other domain about something or other. People have been making pictures of composite creatures since ever since when, and it's been very religious for them. However, religion as mythology seems to be comprised of two interdependent parts - the traditional and the creative, as Joseph Campbell terms them. I read a web page about reductive hermeneutics of mythology, which seems analogous to traditional mythology. There are combinatorial mechanics based on eschatalogical reminiscences.

I found a web page that said that the "Archaeopteryx" was a fake. I'm guessing that it's a construction of somebody's idea of what is colloquially termed an "old bird." That might be getting a wee bit flippant. Why do you think humans made creatures in their drawings and artifacts in ancient history? There is suggestion that the feathers are recent additions of chicken feathers. Romans 1:23 says that people exchange the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. In a world that seems to see no problem with describing woman as "maternal ouroborus", is it possible that debates about the relationship between form and function have been raging for a lot longer than just the last one hundred or so years? Why did the apostle Paul write: "peteinon - petomai - to fly" and "tetrapous - four foot, both of men or beast, often in the orient, one put his foot on vanquished, of disciples listening to their teacher's instruction are said to be at his feet" and "herpeton - neuter of a derivative of herpo (to creep)."

Creepy refers to the sensation of creeping in the flesh caused by horror or repugnance. Repugn means to resist and Satan means Resister.

We live in a mythology. Democracy is based on the myth of the social contract. The alternative to mythology, according to 2 Timothy 4:3-5 is evangelising. (Evangel means "good angel.") The way that Christians are treated due to their preaching work demonstrates that democracy is an all-embracing system of mythology. All humans throughout history have, according to me, either been involved in a mythology, or involved in deliberately rejecting it via a personal walk with God. How you could get objective scientific truth out of such a system is beyond me. Mythology is neither true, nor false; it is merely effective.

One of the meanings of the word "prove" is "to cause (dough) to rise to the necessary lightness." I saw one of the Simpsons episodes the other night where the criminals were in jail, talking about how language is their stock in trade. Jesus' warned against spiritual leaven. The apostle Paul also commented on it. 1 Corinthians 5:8 says: "Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." Matthew 16:11, 12 says: "'But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.' Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."

These are the symptoms of hypnosis: fluttery eyelids, watery eyes, feeling stuck to the chair or floor, heaviness and lightness at the same time, time distortion so that time feels like it is dragging, loss of feeling in arms and legs, and stomach noises. According to Robert Baker, it is socially induced by means of compliance, suggestion and relaxation. The victim (my choice of words) acts out the role they "think" people want them to. The connection I'm trying to make is the heaviness and lightness at the same time.

The Pharisees and Sadducees had different approaches. The Sadducees were more conventional and didn't believe in the resurrection. The Pharisees did, were more eclectic and democratic, and had a thing for purity and separation. They also had a habit of converting people strategically one at a time. (Matthew 25:13)

I remember one scene in "How to Make an American Quilt" where one woman is so intent on her wall mural inspired by the theme of "my sister slept with my husband many years ago", although she wasn't saying that was the reason. She was absorbed in her creative task, though.

Entertainment, which appears to be a value of the mythological system, means "to hold mutually." If Christians are intent on proving that they have just as much of a well-balanced outlook on life as everybody else, as allegedly proven by their ability to smile or laugh, then they're going to be playing the same game of farcical extrapolations from the Bible text. James 4 urges changing laughter into grieving so as to prove repentance, not claiming expert wisdom in subject matters with specimens that, controversially or otherwise, lie in mixed arenas, both public and private. I don't see why I should trust anybody, is basically what I'm saying. I saw patterns of sea shells that had obviously taken a tremendous amount of creative work on the fronts of vases at the florist this morning and wondered at the patience of whoever did them, but that doesn't mean that I necessarily think that whoever's pocketing the money if they sell is even the artist. That's the world I live in. Isaiah 2:22 says: "Stop trusting in human beings, who have but a breath in their nostrils. Why hold them in esteem?"

This is the kind of thing I think that science students in the ilk of Barbara Streisand's character from "What's Up, Doc?" who gets funded through many universities by her Dad would find amusing, or even quite serious! "Consider these examples of C14 results: A freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October 1971], p. 211.) Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old. (Science, vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637.) Living snails' shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago. (Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.)" And yet there might be more to that story as well. Who knows?

Mythology is based on aspiration, not authority. But human beings are capable of fearing authority without reference to extraneous details such as heroism or reputation, and I don't think that this is an accident. Compare 1 Peter 2:13, 14.

Answer 10

Shouldn't there be millions and millions of transitional fossils, instead of just relatively few?